COST OF DEPARTMENTS

Hokitika Guardian, 26 January 1921, Page 3

COST OF DEPARTMENTS

(Lyttelton Times)

There is much more to-be said than has yet been put forward on the important subject of public expenditure, l In our present treatment of this matter . we are confining ourselves to the cost of the Departments—to what are classified in the accounts as “ryrnual appropriations,” distinguishing them from the “permanent appropriations,” which include loan service charges, pensions, : and other payments that are fixed by Parliament and are consequently not valiable according t<> the efficiency or inefficiency of tlie Administration. If vc included the permanent appropriations in the tables showing growth of expenditure the position would, perI haps, he more disturbing in appearance | than even the shocking record of the J Departments. But it is not ltgitimate _to complain of loan charges, pensions and the like, although their existence and their size is an additional reason, if it were needed, why tho controllable expenditure of the Departments should he reduced. We showed yesterday how the total cost of the Departments has increased in the last nine, years, taking the current year's estimates into account, from £6,453,750 to £15,982,356. j We now propose to trace the developI merit of the spending habit year by i year, so that our readers’may be able j to apportion the responsibility. No doubt the first thought tlifit will occur to the mind of anybody who studies the position will he that the war made heavier expenditure inevitable. That is so. The expenditures that we are discussing, however, include none of the charges for interest, for pensions, or for repatriation, though it must he conceded in fairness that the work of many of the Departments was increased by the war. But the war did not commence until well into the third year of the period under discussion, and it may

be said to have had practically, no-in-fluence upon the public finances before 1915-16. Long before the war was lioarcl of the Reform Government bail very largely raised tlie cost of the Departments, and consequently the demands upon the pockets of the taxpayers. In the first two years of their administration the so-called Reformers had increased these charges, which they had promised to reduce, by over a million sterling. The following table shows tho increase in each year and the .Minister in charge:—

Year ended Finance Increase over

“‘Signifies decrease. A brief analysis of the foregoing will show that the shares of responsibility j ior the total increase can be divided in this way:— Sir, James Allen—three peace years, £1,420,876. Sir Joseph Ward—four war years, £1,580,123. Sir James Allen and Mr Massey—two post-war years, £6,527,607. And further examination brings out these nut uninteresting facts: — Sir James Allen’s peace-time average increase per annum, £473,625, Sir Joseph Ward’s war-time average. £395,031. The dreadful average since under Sir J. Allen and Mr Massey, £3,263,803. One shudders to think uhal the situation will be in the future unless drastic and immediate steps are taken to bring about both retrenchment and economy. Next month the- payers of income tax will he pouring millions of money, which they can ill spare, into the Treasury. Many of those unfortunate people will have to borrow money—mortgage future income—to pay their taxes. The total taxation for the current year is likely to equal quite £l6 per head of the population. This burden cannot fail to strain the resources of tiie country, although conditions are comparatovely prosperous. But in the coming year all the indications are that the incomes of tho principal taxpayers will he appreciably reduced and the tax revenue will fall correspondingly. In these ci renin stances Mr Massey will he face lo face with two alternatives, lie must either bring about a large measure of retrenchment and economy in the Departments of State or increase the rates of taxation, which now are so excessive. But we think, and wo hope, that the public will rebel against being lurtlier fleeced, or against a continuation of the present seizure of their earnings, while the Government, through the Departments, maintains the existing Kite, which is an alarmingly progressive rate, of expenditure. It is high time that the Prime Minister ordered a searching investigation of the condition of his Departments, which nulst be either over-staffed or over-paid, or else are criminally wasteful. Existing conditions can lead only to bankruptcy.

.Ma rcli, .M inistor previous year £ 1913 ... Allen 570,103 1911 ... Allen 559,923 191.3 Allen 284,850 191(1 .. Ward *74,684 1917 .. Ward 163,463 19IS .. Ward 486,062 1919 .. Ward 1,003,272 4920 .. Allen 2,938,114 1921 i est.) Massey 3,589,490